| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
palkorea
Joined: 29 Mar 2003
Location: Jeonnam
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2005 8:37 pm Post subject: digital cameras - what's more important- zoom or megapixels? |
 |
|
I'm looking at the Canon Powershot S1 IS...it's a really nice camera, with 10x zoom, but it only has 3.2 megapixels. For my use, 3.2 is enough, but is it worth it to get such a great zoom, and such low MP?
I want the zoom, and I'm partial to Canon...I'd appreciate any comments. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2005 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It generally depends on what you want to do with it. I have my camera set for 1.0 megapixel photos and I still have to reduce them about 30% to fit them on a monitor comfortably. For online pictures sharing 3.2 is most excellent. For prints, people think 5.0 is better but I think 3.2 would do good prints anyway.
Optical zoom, thought, I put way ahead of megapixels. Nothing like being able to zoom and really frame up a photo exactly how you want it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swiss James
Joined: 26 Nov 2003
Location: Shanghai
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2005 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I would guess that few people would ever use a quality setting above 3 megapixels anyway- I know I never have. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
agraham
Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Location: Daegu, Korea
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2005 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
With a 35 mm you need 2x zoom just to get to a normal field of view.
My Canon is 3.2 MP and 3x optical zoom, but it barely zooms in at all.
Here's a pic I took of the north korean flag from across the DMZ. It was clearly visible with the naked eye, but even at 3x zoom it's just a tiny smudge to the left of the middle guy's head. With 10x I might have been able to capture it.
3.2 MP is almost enough. I would get the 10x zoom for sure.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hypnotist
Joined: 04 Dec 2004
Location: I wish I were a sock
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2005 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No point in having millions of megapixels if the lens isn't able to get a sharp enough picture to them.
I got a Panasonic 4MP with Lumix lens (and 12x zoom) and love the thing.
3.1 is a bit on the low side these days, but if the reviews say the lens is good it should be fine for t'interweb and smallish prints. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Demophobe
Joined: 17 May 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2005 11:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why do people only associate megapixels with resolution? (size)
I guess it is what you want, but a 1 megapixel photo is visibly inferior to a 3 or 7 megapixel phot resized.
Megapixels also mean detail. Try a photo of a really bushy plant or a group of leafless trees (anything that is huge in fine details) in one MP and then 3 or more. Resize the higher MP photo and compare it to the one MP photo. You too will see the difference.
A one MP photo will make a decent wallet-sized photo.
hypnotist is spot on about the lens. Derrek told me once that my S70 was really cool because of the lens, not the MP (7.1). I disagreed to the extent that both in combination are what was making it great. I still think that way. 7.1 MP with a good lens gets (yes, very large) great, sharp and detailed pictures.
My monitor resolution is 1600x1200, but capable of much higher. I don't shoot photos with the monitor in mind at all....not many people do, do they? One should be thinking of prints when it comes to megapixels, not monitor resolution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
palkorea
Joined: 29 Mar 2003
Location: Jeonnam
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 1:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Wow, thanks for all the replies. You guys talked me into it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Lemon
Joined: 11 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 1:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Demophobe wrote: |
Why do people only associate megapixels with resolution? (size)
...
I guess it is what you want, but a 1 megapixel photo is visibly inferior to a 3 or 7 megapixel phot resized.
|
Yup, but the more interesting comparison is with a solid 3mp camera with a long zoom vs one with a 6 or 7mp imager. When printed as a 5x7, any difference between the two - all other things being equal - is minimal, and non-existent when resized online. Speaking as someone with a long-zoom camera, the nice zoom is a much bigger deal than pixel count.
The obvious drawback of the long-zooms is their size though. But it's a deliberate tradeoff of bulk vs image quality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
panthermodern
Joined: 08 Feb 2003
Location: Taxronto
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 2:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Does anyone make a digital camera that has removable a lens like a "old fashioned" 35mm camera? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Lemon
Joined: 11 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 6:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| panthermodern wrote: |
| Does anyone make a digital camera that has removable a lens like a "old fashioned" 35mm camera? |
Sure - Digital SLRs. The cheapest ones are just below $1000US for the body. The most popular models are the Canon Digital Rebel and the Nikon D-70. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
panthermodern
Joined: 08 Feb 2003
Location: Taxronto
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 10:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| That's pricy ... I guess you don't see many about because "photographers" still use film and the price is beyond your average punter ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eamo
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Location: Shepherd's Bush, 1964.
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In my estimation the 'average user' doesn't need more than 4-5 megapixels. You can get decent quality prints up to A4 size with a 5 megapixel camera.
A good quality lens with 6X or more optical zoom may be more useful after the 5 megapixel level. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dalton
Joined: 26 Mar 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| My 2 cents. The site camcorderinfo.com was a great source source of info for me when I bought mine about a year ago in Youngsan. A Panasonic NV 400 GS with 3 ccd's. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
logan
Joined: 01 Aug 2003
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2005 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
5MP should be the minimum you have for a camera these days as printing tech gets better the extra information translates into better images in the long run.
Also think about file format, most P&S only offer jpeg which is good for keeping size down but not good for color correction and other fine adjustments where the Raw format is best.
Zooms are overrated it's nice but often makes people lazy framing up standing in only one spot, only using the zoom. Often times a better picture can be had by moving closer to the subject. Forces you to plan ahead and visualize the shot.
Optical zoom and digital zoom are entirely different, digital zooms interpolate the image up reducing the quality where as optical zooms use the mechanics of the lens optics to get closer to the subject. With higher MP camera's digital zoom is less of a problem as there is more information to interpolate up.
Historically prime lenses have always had better contrast and clarity than zooms have, that is changing in the pro SLR lenses but not so much in P&S. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Lemon
Joined: 11 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 6:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| logan wrote: |
| 5MP should be the minimum you have for a camera these days as printing tech gets better the extra information translates into better images in the long run. |
Have to disagree. A good 3 megapixel camera will produce an image that can printed to 5x7 without any noticable pixelation. A 4 megapixel camera will do the same at full A4 size & 4800dpi (I just did it 10 minutes ago), even with some cropping on the edges. 5 megapixels allows for more cropping to play with, but for normal-sized prints it doesn't make a difference in print resolution. Most people I know who have 5 megapixel cameras never use the capacity (in terms of printing or cropping) the larger imager enables. They could have bought a camera with a better lens but a smaller imager and saved some money, and taken better pictures.
| Quote: |
| Also think about file format, most P&S only offer jpeg which is good for keeping size down but not good for color correction and other fine adjustments where the Raw format is best. |
RAW is best (at least in theory) for post-processing control. But a JPG with, say, quality set at 75% or more (set in Photoshop) will create a print that is (to my eyes) indistinguishable from one from a RAW image, and free of compression artifacts perceptable to most normal humans.
| Quote: |
| Zooms are overrated |
No. This week my good friend at school brought his D-70 DSLR to our school's Sports Day, equipped with the standard short-zoom lens commonly bundled with the camera (don't remember the length - looked to be about 4x at best). While his camera is in most respects way-way-way superior to mine, he was simply unable to take shots of events happening out on the field away from our viewing stand - shots that mine successfully took with ease.
| Quote: |
| it's nice but often makes people lazy framing up standing in only one spot, only using the zoom. Often times a better picture can be had by moving closer to the subject. Forces you to plan ahead and visualize the shot. |
Completely agree. However, the zoom allows for framing when moving closer is impossible. Example: The Moon.
Your reasoning can also be applied to tripod use - tripods are good to use psychologically because you're forced to think about the shot you're about to take as you set the stand up and mount your camera on it.
| Quote: |
| Optical zoom and digital zoom are entirely different, digital zooms interpolate the image up reducing the quality where as optical zooms use the mechanics of the lens optics to get closer to the subject. With higher MP camera's digital zoom is less of a problem as there is more information to interpolate up. |
On the other hand, good software does a better job than the "digital zoom" would, at the scene. And you're not committed to a particular framing.
| Quote: |
| Historically prime lenses have always had better contrast and clarity than zooms have, that is changing in the pro SLR lenses but not so much in P&S. |
The biggest problem with long-zooms is chromatic aberration - in particular, purple fringing, which plagues almost all cameras over 8x at least to some extent. When shooting high-contrast images (say, a dark utility pole with bright sky behind it), the edge of the pole will show a really really ugly bluish-purple edge to it. You can get rid of it by changing the aperature manually, or in Photoshop after the fact, but it can be a pain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
